ALLIED HOME: Sued for Withholding Money From Employees' Paychecks-----------------------------------------------------------------Courthouse News Service reports that employees say in a classaction that Allied Home Mortgage Corp. and affiliates and theirowner Jim C. Hodge, of Spring, Texas, "unlawfully withheldmillions of dollars from the paychecks they issued."

Federal arbitration law preempts California's findings about theclass-action ban, Justice Antonin Scalia wrote for the five-justice majority, all conservative appointees. Justice StephenBreyer led a four-justice dissent that laments the court's blow tofederalism.

Vincent and Liza Concepcion brought a class action against AT&TMobility for allegedly fraudulent taxes on their cell phonecontract. The District Court held that AT&T's arbitration clauseblocking class actions was unconscionable, and thus unenforceable,and the 9th Circuit affirmed, finding that the Federal ArbitrationAct did not preempt California's law on unconscionable contracts.Oral arguments occurred in November 2010.

Judge Scalia said the bench conducted a complex inquiry of thecase to see if the lower courts applied the unconscionabilitydoctrine "in a fashion that disfavors arbitration."

"[I]t is worth noting that California's courts have been morelikely to hold contracts to arbitrate unconscionable than othercontracts," according to the majority opinion. "The Concepcionssuggest that all this is just a parade of horribles, and nogenuine worry."

Though the majority agreed that the savings clause in Section 2 ofthe Federal Arbitration Act would not let states' anti-arbitrationpreference "eviscerate arbitration agreements," as the Concepcionsargued in their brief, they said the Concepcions strayed from theact's purpose.

"Requiring the availability of classwide arbitration interfereswith fundamental attributes of arbitration and thus creates ascheme inconsistent with the FAA," Judge Scalia wrote, using theacronym for the act.

Arbitration has many benefits, according to the ruling.

"The point of affording parties discretion in designingarbitration processes is to allow for efficient, streamlinedprocedures tailored to the type of dispute," Judge Scalia wrote."It can be specified, for example, that the decisionmaker be aspecialist in the relevant field, or that proceedings be keptconfidential to protect trade secrets. And the informality ofarbitral proceedings is itself desirable, reducing the cost andincreasing the speed of dispute resolution."

Judge Breyer agreed in the dissent that the arbitration hasadvantages, but he noted that Congress never meant to guaranteesuch benefits. "Rather, that primary objective was to secure the'enforcement' of agreements to arbitrate," Judge Breyer wrote.

"Thus, insofar as we seek to implement Congress' intent, we shouldthink more than twice before invalidating a state law that doesjust what Section 2 requires, namely, puts agreements to arbitrateand agreements to litigate 'upon the same footing,'" the dissentalso states.

Judge Scalia attacked this characterization of intent as"misleading." And though the dissent also argues that classactions are valuable for small claims that could slip through thecracks of the legal system, Scalia noted that the lower courtssaid the Concepcions would have fared better in their arbitrationagreement with AT&T than as participants of a class action.

Judge Breyer countered that "the merits of class proceedingsshould not factor into our decision."

"Why is this kind of decision -- weighing the pros and cons of allclass proceedings alike -- not California's to make?" the dissentasks.

Justice Clarence Thomas said in concurring opinion that, althoughhe would "reluctantly join" the majority, litigants cannot nullifyan arbitration agreement under federal law unless they provefraud, duress or some other challenge to "the formation of thearbitration agreement."

"But federalism is as much a question of deeds as words," thedissent states. "It often takes the form of a concrete decisionby this Court that respects the legitimacy of a State's action inan individual case. Here, recognition of that federalist ideal,embodied in specific language in this particular statute, shouldlead us to uphold California's law, not to strike it down. We donot honor federalist principles in their breach."

A copy of the Opinion in AT&T Mobility LLC v. Concepcion, et ux.,Case No. 09-cv-000893 (9th Cir.), is available at:

CANADA: Certification Expected for Summer School Fee Class Suit--------------------------------------------------------------CKNW News Talk 980 reports that North Vancouver lawyer Jim Poynersays a class-action lawsuit he launched earlier this month will becertified soon. He launched the suit on behalf of a Vancouvercouple two years ago. If it wins, it could mean parents will getrepaid for fees used to pay for summer school.

Mr. Poyner says, "There are another 26 school districts that wefeel have collected school fee's that they shouldn't havecollected and haven't paid them back."

Mr. Poyner says he is launching a separate class action suitagainst those districts.

The BC Government was forced to declare summer school chargesillegal in 2007 after an earlier Court ruling. Mr. Poyner says ifit was illegal in 2007 it should also be illegal between 2004 and2006.

CASH AMERICA: Class Certification in "Strong" Case Upheld---------------------------------------------------------The Supreme Court of Georgia upheld class certification in apurported class action lawsuit filed by James E. Strong againstCash America International, Inc., and other defendants, accordingto the Company's April 22, 2011, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S.Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended March 31,2011.

On August 6, 2004, James E. Strong filed a purported class actionlawsuit in the State Court of Cobb County, Georgia against GeorgiaCash America, Inc., Cash America International, Inc., Daniel R.Feehan, and several unnamed officers, directors, owners and"stakeholders" of Cash America. The lawsuit alleges manydifferent causes of action, among the most significant of which isthat Cash America made illegal short-term loans in Georgia inviolation of Georgia's usury law, the Georgia Industrial Loan Actand Georgia's Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act.Community State Bank for some time made loans to Georgia residentsthrough Cash America's Georgia operating locations. The complaintin this lawsuit claims that Cash America was the true lender withrespect to the loans made to Georgia borrowers and that CSB'sinvolvement in the process is "a mere subterfuge." Based on thisclaim, the suit alleges that Cash America was the "de facto"lender and was illegally operating in Georgia. The complaintseeks unspecified compensatory damages, attorney's fees, punitivedamages and the trebling of any compensatory damages. InNovember 2009, the trial court certified the case as a classaction lawsuit, and after an appeal by Cash America, the SupremeCourt of Georgia upheld the class certification in March 2011.

Cash America believes that the Plaintiffs' claims in this suit arewithout merit and is vigorously defending this lawsuit.

Cash America and CSB also commenced a federal lawsuit onSeptember 7, 2004, in the U.S. District Court for the NorthernDistrict of Georgia seeking to compel Mr. Strong to arbitrate hisclaims against Cash America and CSB. The U.S. District Courtdismissed the federal action for lack of subject matterjurisdiction, and Cash America and CSB appealed the dismissal oftheir complaint to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 11th Circuit.The 11th Circuit issued a panel decision in April 2007 reversingthe district court's dismissal of the action and remanding theaction to the district court for a determination of the issue ofthe enforceability of the parties' arbitration agreements.Plaintiff requested the 11th Circuit to review this decision enbanc and this request was granted. The en banc rehearing tookplace in February 2008, and at the request of the 11th Circuitpanel, the parties provided additional briefing in the summer of2009 following a ruling by the United States Supreme Court thatfederal courts can compel arbitration of a state court action incertain instances. The parties are awaiting the 11th Circuitcourt's decision. The Strong litigation is still at an earlystage, and neither the likelihood of an unfavorable outcome northe ultimate liability, if any, with respect to this litigationcan be determined at this time.

CASH AMERICA: Awaits OK on Arbitration Plea in "Alfeche" Suit-------------------------------------------------------------Cash America of PA, LLC, doing business as CashNetUSA.com, isawaiting a decision on its motion to enforce an arbitrationprovision in certain agreements governing lending activities,according to Cash America International, Inc.'s April 22, 2011,Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commissionfor the quarter ended March 31, 2011.

On March 5, 2009, Peter Alfeche filed a purported class actionlawsuit in the United States District Court for the EasternDistrict of Pennsylvania against Cash America International, Inc.,Cash America Net of Nevada, LLC, Cash America Net of Pennsylvania,LLC and Cash America of PA, LLC, d/b/a CashNetUSA.com. Thelawsuit alleges, among other things, that CashNetUSA's onlineconsumer loan activities in Pennsylvania were illegal and not inaccordance with the Pennsylvania Loan Interest Protection Law orthe licensing requirements of the Pennsylvania Consumer DiscountCompany Act. The lawsuit also seeks declaratory judgment thatseveral of CashNetUSA's contractual provisions, including choiceof law and arbitration provisions, are not authorized byPennsylvania law. The complaint seeks unspecified compensatorydamages, attorney's fees and the trebling of any compensatorydamages. CashNetUSA filed a motion to enforce the arbitrationprovision located in the agreements governing the lendingactivities, and the court has not yet ruled on this motion. TheAlfeche litigation is still at an early stage, and neither thelikelihood of an unfavorable outcome nor the ultimate liability,if any, with respect to this litigation can be determined at thistime. CashNetUSA believes that the Plaintiffs' claims in thissuit are without merit and will vigorously defend this lawsuit.

CASH AMERICA: Awaits OK on Arbitration Plea in "Clerk" Suit-----------------------------------------------------------Cash America Net of Nevada, LLC, is awaiting a decision on itsmotion to enforce an arbitration provision in certain agreementsgoverning lending activities, according to Cash AmericaInternational, Inc.'s April 22, 2011, Form 10-Q filing with theU.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter endedMarch 31, 2011.

On April 21, 2009, Yulon Clerk filed a purported class actionlawsuit in the Court of Common Pleas of Philadelphia County,Pennsylvania, against CashNet Nevada and several other unrelatedthird-party lenders. The lawsuit alleges, among other things,that the defendants' lending activities in Pennsylvania, includingCashNet Nevada's online consumer loan lending activities inPennsylvania, were illegal and in violation of variousPennsylvania laws, including the Loan Interest Protection Law, theCDCA and the Unfair Trade Practices and Consumer Protection Laws.The complaint seeks payment of potential fines, unspecifieddamages, attorney's fees and the trebling of certain damages. Thedefendants removed the case to the United States District Courtfor the Eastern District of Pennsylvania where the lawsuit nowresides. The case was subsequently reassigned to the same judgepresiding in the Alfeche litigation. In August 2009, the Courtsevered the claims against the other defendants originally namedin the litigation. CashNet Nevada filed a motion with the federalcourt to enforce the arbitration provision located in theagreements governing the lending activities, and the Court has notyet ruled on this motion.

The Company says the Clerk litigation is still at an early stage,and neither the likelihood of an unfavorable outcome nor theultimate liability, if any, with respect to this litigation can bedetermined at this time. CashNet Nevada believes that thePlaintiffs' claims in this suit are without merit and willvigorously defend this lawsuit.

CERTAINTEED CORP: Sued Over Defective Fiber Cement Siding---------------------------------------------------------Bruce Vielmetti, writing for the Journal Sentinel, reports that aWest Bend couple who say the siding on their new home failed inless than two years have sued the manufacturer, claiming that itsold defective fiber cement siding to thousands of othersnationwide as well.

Koreen Grube names Pennsylvania-based CertainTeed as the defendantin the suit, filed last week in Milwaukee federal court, one ofseveral such lawsuits around the country.

The complaint states Ms. Grube built her home in 2007 and by 2009noticed cracks and warps in the siding, which had been advertisedas being warranteed for 50 years. According to the lawsuit, thecompany offered to give Ms. Grube new boards, but she would beresponsible for more than $7,000 in installation costs.

The lawsuit cites seven causes of action, from breach of expressand implied warranties to negligence and unjust enrichment, andseeks unspecified damages and certification as a national classaction.

According to the lawsuit, around 2002, CertainTeed began using flyash instead of grain and silica sand in the siding. While savingmoney for the manufacturer, it resulted in "water absorption,porository problems, and other uniform defects alleged herein."

Bill Seiberlich, a spokesman with the company, issued thisstatement: "We have reviewed the allegations of the complaints andwe dispute many of the statements. Because these matters are inlitigation, we cannot comment further on specifics of the cases orthe allegations being made. However, if it is determined that theproblems alleged in these complaints are due to manufacturingerror, we will honor the terms of our written warranty, as we dowith any claim."

CHALMETTE REFINING: 5th Circuit Vacates Class Certification-----------------------------------------------------------Sabrina Canfield at Courthouse News Service reports that theUnited States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit vacated classcertification in a suit that claims a group of children andseveral adult chaperones were exposed to petroleum coke dustreleased by a refinery adjacent to a park.

A three-judge panel agreed with Chalmette Refinery that theDistrict Court failed to prove it had seriously considered how thetrial would be conducted -- a finding it would have to make beforeruling in favor of class certification.

"We do not suggest that class treatment is necessarilyinappropriate," Judge Edith Brown Clement wrote for the court."As Chalmette Refining acknowledged at oral argument, classtreatment on the common issue of liability may indeed beappropriate. But our precedent demands a far more rigorousanalysis than the district court conducted."

On the afternoon of Jan. 12, 2007, a number of school children,their teachers and parents were at the Chalmette NationalBattlefield participating in an historical reenactment when theChalmette Refinery released petroleum coke dust into the air.

Five of the adults present filed a lawsuit on behalf ofthemselves, their children and everyone else at the ChalmetteBattlefield who was exposed to the toxic dust.

The suit sought a variety of damages, claiming personal injury,fear, anguish, psychological injury and evacuation, as well aseconomic and property damages.

The District Court granted the plaintiffs' request for classcertification, but the 5th Circuit disagreed, finding the DistrictCourt "abused its discretion" by adopting "a figure-it-out-as-we-go-along approach."

Before certifying a class, a court must determine that "questionsof law or fact common to the members of the class predominate overany questions affecting only individual members and that a classaction is superior to other available methods for fairly andefficiently adjudicating the controversy," Judge Clement wrote.

"By failing to adequately analyze and balance the common issuesagainst the individual issues, the district court abused itsdiscretion in determining that common issues predominated and incertifying the class," the ruling states.

The 5th Circuit said the District Court "oversimplifies the issue"in concluding that the plaintiffs were either on the battlefieldand exposed to the coke dust, or they were not.

Agreeing with Chalmette Refinery, Judge Clement wrote that "evenamong the named class representatives, significant disparitiesexist, in terms of exposure, location, and whether mitigativesteps were taken" to prevent harm after the plaintiffs wereexposed to the dust.

A copy of the decision in Madison, et al. v. Chalmette Refining,L.L.C., Case No. 10-cv-30368 (5th Cir.), is available at:

Plaintiff Matthews is a 60-year old employee of the CTA, aparticipant of the Retirement Plan for CTA Employees, and a memberof Amalgamated Union Local 308. Mr. Matthews began working forthe CTA in 1972.

Defendant Board of Trustees of the Retirement Plan for ChicagoTransit Employees administers the Retirement Plan. It is thesuccessor to the Retirement Allowance Committee that administeredthe Retirement Plan prior to the passage of P.A. 95-708 onJanuary 18, 2008.

Defendant Board of Trustees of the Retiree Health Care Trustadministers the Health Trust.

As required by the terms of collective bargaining agreementsbetween the CTA and Local 241 and Local 308 (together, the"Transit Unions"), the CTA began providing fully-paid retireehealth care benefits in 1980, and continued to provide thosebenefits until July 2009.

On January 18, 2008, however, then Governor of Illinois RodBlagojevich signed into law Illinois Public Act No. 95-708. Thelaw, among other things, permitted the Health Trust Board tocharge CTA retirees up to 45% of the total cost of their healthcare benefits. This Complaint challenges the constitutionality ofthat statute.

Beginning on July 1, 2009, the CTA, the Retirement Plan, and theHealth Trust joined together to compel retiree class members topay for health care benefits by setting up a mechanism to deductthe improper charges automatically from CTA retirees' monthlypension checks. Class members were told they had no choice but toauthorize such automatic deductions or their retiree health carebenefits would end.

ENMAX CORP: Faces Class Action for Overcharging Utility Bills-------------------------------------------------------------CBC News reports that a $30-million class action lawsuit has beenfiled against Enmax, alleging the city-owned utility has breachedconsumer protection legislation by overcharging people who havebeen late paying their bills.

On Enmax's utility bills, it states that late payments are subjectto a 3.25% monthly fee, which adds up to more than 40% a year.

Under the federal Interest Act, companies can only charge 5%annually unless they clearly state their annual interest charge.

In its statement of defense, Enmax rejects the lawsuit asfrivolous. It says it charges a late payment fee, not interest,so it's not subject to the Interest Act.

But Lawyer Robert Hawkes wants a judge to order Enmax to refundmillions of dollars that it shouldn't have collected, likely muchof it from economically vulnerable customers.

"The very folks who end up not paying their account in time eitherbecause they can't afford to, or they perhaps haven't managedtheir monthly bills, are the very people who end up paying thesecharges. And so it's not people in our society who are more welloff who usually end up paying these charges, it's usually thepeople who can least afford it."

None of the allegations have been heard, or proven, in court.

GEOFFREY ZAKARIAN: Files for Bankruptcy Amid Class Actions----------------------------------------------------------According to Gothamist's John Del Signore, Geoffrey Zakarian, thefamous chef/restaurateur whom you may recall from TV's Chopped, isfiling for bankruptcy, the Times reported in a sensational articlethat details a million dollar class action lawsuit against thechef, filed by some 152 disgruntled kitchen staffers.Mr. Zakarian runs The Lambs Club and The National in NYC, as wellas the food and beverage program at the Water Club at the Borgatain Atlantic City; he's also opening another restaurant at a MiamiBeach hotel, and starring in the Next Iron Chef. And yes, he'sfiling for bankruptcy, presumably so the workers he allegedlyscrewed out of overtime pay can't bleed him dry.

The 152 plaintiffs were all employees at Mr. Zakarian's failedrestaurant Country, near Madison Square Park. They say he neverpaid them time and a half for overtime, falsified pay records, andcharged them for staff meals they never even ate. The lawsuitseeks $1 million in damages and $250,000 in penalties, butMr. Zakarian's bankruptcy filing temporarily stops the lawsuit inits tracks. "Isn't it interesting that a TV celebrity chef, whoopens multiple new restaurants around the country, can file forbankruptcy?" the workers' lawyer asks the Times. Yes, it isinteresting!

Mr. Zakarian, who is "sequestered" in LA shooting Next Iron Chef,denies any wrongdoing. But what's interesting about this lawsuitis that his former partners at Country have sided with theworkers; one of them, Adam Block, tells the Times, "I know thatGeoffrey Zakarian's narcissistic behavior and arrogance causedCountry to fail and inevitably allowed whatever wage and hourviolations occurred while he was Country's operator." Accordingto the lawsuit, when one worker confronted Mr. Zakarian about theovertime pay he was owed, Mr. Zakarian -- who rents a $3 millionfour-bedroom house in Greenwich, Connecticut -- told him, "Go peelsome asparagus."

HALLIBURTON CO: Appeal on Ruling Denying Class Cert. Still Pending------------------------------------------------------------------An appeal from the order denying class certification in aconsolidated lawsuit alleging violations of federal securitieslaws remains pending, according to Halliburton Company's April 22,2011, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and ExchangeCommission for the quarter ended March 31, 2011.

In June 2002, a class action lawsuit was filed against the Companyin federal court alleging violations of the federal securitieslaws after the SEC initiated an investigation in connection withthe Company's change in accounting for revenue on long-termconstruction projects and related disclosures. In the weeks thatfollowed, approximately twenty similar class actions were filedagainst the Company. Several of those lawsuits also named asdefendants several of the Company's present or former officers anddirectors. The class action cases were later consolidated, andthe amended consolidated class action complaint, styled RichardMoore, et al. v. Halliburton Company, et al., was filed and servedupon the Company in April 2003. As a result of a substitution oflead plaintiffs, the case is now styled Archdiocese of MilwaukeeSupporting Fund (AMSF) v. Halliburton Company, et al. AMSF haschanged its name to Erica P. John Fund, Inc. The Company settledwith the SEC in the second quarter of 2004.

In June 2003, the lead plaintiffs filed a motion for leave to filea second amended consolidated complaint, which was granted by thecourt. In addition to restating the original accounting anddisclosure claims, the second amended consolidated complaintincluded claims arising out of the 1998 acquisition of DresserIndustries, Inc., by Halliburton, including that the Companyfailed to timely disclose the resulting asbestos liabilityexposure.

In April 2005, the court appointed a new co-lead counsel and namedErica P. John Fund the new lead plaintiff, directing that it filea third consolidated amended complaint and that the Company fileits motion to dismiss. The court held oral arguments on thatmotion in August 2005, at which time the court took the motionunder advisement. In March 2006, the court entered an order inwhich it granted the motion to dismiss with respect to claimsarising prior to June 1999 and granted the motion with respect tocertain other claims while permitting Erica P. John Fund to re-plead some of those claims to correct deficiencies in its earliercomplaint. In April 2006, Erica P. John Fund filed its fourthamended consolidated complaint. The Company filed a motion todismiss those portions of the complaint that had been re-pled. Ahearing was held on that motion in July 2006, and in March 2007,the court ordered dismissal of the claims against all individualdefendants other than the Company's chief executive officer. Thecourt ordered that the case proceed against the Company's CEO andHalliburton.

In September 2007, Erica P. John Fund filed a motion for classcertification, and the Company's response was filed in November2007. The court held a hearing in March 2008, and issued an orderNovember 3, 2008, denying Erica P. John Fund's motion for classcertification. Erica P. John Fund appealed the district court'sorder to the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals. The Fifth Circuitaffirmed the district court's order denying class certification.On May 13, 2010, Erica P. John Fund filed a writ of certiorari inthe United States Supreme Court. In early January 2011, theSupreme Court granted Erica P. John Fund's writ of certiorari andaccepted the appeal. The Court was scheduled to hear oralarguments April 25, 2011. The appeal is limited to review of thelegal ruling of the Fifth Circuit affirmance of the districtcourt's order denying class certification and will not includereview of the facts of the underlying lawsuit.

The Company said that as of March 31, 2011, it had not accrued anyamounts related to this matter because it does not believe that aloss is probable. Furthermore, an estimate of possible loss orrange of loss related to this matter cannot be made.

HALLIBURTON: Supreme Court Weighs on Securities Class Action------------------------------------------------------------James Vicini and Carlyn Kolker, writing for Insurance Journal,report that The U.S. Supreme Court considered on April 26 whetherto make it more difficult for shareholders to proceed with certainclass-action securities-fraud lawsuits against publicly tradedcompanies.

The hour-long arguments before the justices in the case comes at atime when dozens of shareholder class actions stemming from thefinancial meltdown are making their way through the federalcourts.

At issue in the case, Erica P. John v. Halliburton, is how courtsshould set the threshold for certifying a shareholder class actionalleging securities fraud.

A group of mutual and pension fund investors sued Halliburton in2002, alleging the oilfield services company understated itsasbestos liabilities while overstating revenues in its engineeringand construction business and the benefits of its merger withDresser Industries.

Those misstatements artificially pumped up Halliburton's stockprice, the lawsuit alleged, adding that the company eventuallymade corrective disclosures that caused its stock price to fall.

A federal trial court in Texas threw out the case, ruling thatshareholders had not proved that their losses were tied to aparticular statement made by the company or its officers -- aconcept known as loss causation.

A U.S. appeals court agreed, ruling that, for the lawsuit toproceed as a class action, the plaintiffs must first prove at theoutset, by a preponderance of the evidence, that the allegedmisrepresentations caused the stock price to fall, resulting ininvestor losses.

David Boies, who represented Al Gore before the Supreme Court inthe disputed U.S. presidential election in 2000, argued on behalfof the plaintiffs in urging the justices to reinstate the lawsuit.

He said the question of loss causation normally was tested laterin the litigation, such as at trial, and that the appeals courthas imposed a new test at the class-certification stage.

He was supported during the arguments by Nicole Saharsky, a U.S.Justice Department lawyer who said the appeals court was wrong inessentially requiring the plaintiffs to prove their entire case atsuch an early stage of the litigation.

"You have to prove there was an initial material misstatement,that it distorted the stock price, that it led to a price decreaseand that the price decrease can't be shown by any othersuperceding cause," she said.

Justice Antonin Scalia questioned her argument. "I'm just sayingthat seems to me it's a crazy way to run a railroad."

David Sterling of Houston-based Baker Botts argued for Halliburtonand said the proper test had been used.

Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg said to Mr. Sterling: "Your argumentseems to say, to get a class certification you have to virtuallyprove your case on the merits."

Mr. Sterling said class certification was a significant event,with major repercussions.

"The sheer grant of class certification which aggregates . . .tens of thousands of these claims together in one big case makesevery one of these cases, in effect, a company case and it putshuge settlement pressure on the defendant," he said.

The justices gave no clear indication of how they would rule. Adecision is expected by the end of June.

A ruling for Halliburton could have a "devastating effect" onshareholders' ability to survive the class-certification stage,said Arthur Miller, a professor at New York University Law Schoolwho also practices law at Milberg LLP, which represents plaintiffsin shareholder cases.

Having to prove loss causation at that early stage of a case --when plaintiffs have limited power to demand information from theother side -- would make it difficult for many classes to becertified, which is bad news for investors, Miller said.

The issue has particular resonance for shareholders who suedcompanies in the wake of the financial crisis. Many defendants inthese cases have argued that large stock drops were caused by thebroader financial situation, not by company misstatements.

If the appeals court's ruling is upheld, "plaintiffs are going tobe required to separate market losses from particular allegedmisstatements," said Scott Musoff, a lawyer at Skadden, Arps,Slate, Meagher & Flom, a defense firm. "That's why this is such asignificant case." He may be reached at:

An array of industry trade groups including the SecuritiesIndustry and Financial Markets Association and U.S. Chamber ofCommerce, have filed briefs for the company.

The Supreme Court in recent years has issued a string of decisionscurtailing shareholder lawsuits, rulings that made it harder forplaintiffs to survive motions to dismiss and limited the kind ofthird parties, such as lawyers and accountants, that shareholderscan sue.

This is the second significant case involving class-actioncertification argued before the Supreme Court in a month. In lateMarch the court consider a case stemming from a lawsuit brought byfemale employees of Wal-Mart Inc. that could determine the scopeof class action lawsuits in employment discrimination cases.

Halliburton Company has filed claims against, and is facingcounter-claims filed by, co-defendants in the numerous lawsuitsover the Macondo well incident, according to the Company's April22, 2011, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and ExchangeCommission for the quarter ended March 31, 2011.

The semisubmersible drilling rig, Deepwater Horizon, sank onApril 22, 2010, after an explosion and fire onboard the rig thatbegan on April 20, 2010. The Deepwater Horizon was owned byTransocean Ltd. and had been drilling the Macondo exploration wellin Mississippi Canyon Block 252 in the Gulf of Mexico for thelease operator, BP Exploration & Production, Inc., an indirectwholly owned subsidiary of BP p.l.c. The Company performed avariety of services for BP Exploration, including cementing, mudlogging, directional drilling, measurement-while-drilling, and rigdata acquisition services. Crude oil flowing from the well sitespread across thousands of square miles of the Gulf of Mexico andreached the United States Gulf Coast. Numerous attempts atestimating the volume of oil spilled have been made by variousgroups, and on August 2, 2010, the federal government published anestimate that approximately 4.9 million barrels of oil weredischarged from the well. Efforts to contain the flow ofhydrocarbons from the well were led by the United Statesgovernment and by BP p.l.c., BP Exploration, and their affiliates.The flow of hydrocarbons from the well ceased on July 15, 2010,and the well was permanently capped on September 19, 2010. Therewere eleven fatalities and a number of injuries as a result of theMacondo well incident.

Since April 21, 2010, plaintiffs have been filing lawsuitsrelating to the Macondo well incident. Generally, those lawsuitsallege either (1) damages arising from the oil spill pollution andcontamination (e.g., diminution of property value, lost taxrevenue, lost business revenue, lost tourist dollars, inability toengage in recreational or commercial activities) or (2) wrongfuldeath or personal injuries. To date, the Company has been namedalong with other unaffiliated defendants in more than 370complaints, most of which are alleged class actions, involvingpollution damage claims and at least 28 personal injury lawsuitsinvolving six decedents and 54 allegedly injured persons who wereon the drilling rig at the time of the incident. Another sixlawsuits naming the Company and others relate to alleged personalinjuries sustained by those responding to the explosion and oilspill. Plaintiffs originally filed the lawsuits in federal andstate courts throughout the United States, including Alabama,Delaware, Florida, Georgia, Kentucky, Louisiana, Mississippi,South Carolina, Tennessee, Texas, and Virginia. Except forapproximately three lawsuits not yet consolidated, one lawsuitthat is proceeding in Louisiana state court, one lawsuit that ispending in Delaware state court, and one lawsuit that isproceeding in Texas state court, the Judicial Panel on Multi-District Litigation ordered all of the lawsuits against theCompany consolidated in a multi-district litigation (MDL)proceeding before Judge Carl Barbier in the U.S. Eastern Districtof Louisiana.

The pollution complaints generally allege, among other things,negligence and gross negligence, property damages, taking ofprotected species, and potential economic losses as a result ofenvironmental pollution and generally seek awards of unspecifiedeconomic, compensatory, and punitive damages, as well asinjunctive relief. Plaintiffs in these pollution cases havebrought suit under various legal provisions, including the OPA,the CWA, the MBTA, the ESA, the Outer Continental Shelf Lands Act,the Longshoremen and Harbor Workers Compensation Act, generalmaritime law, state common law, and various state environmentaland products liability statutes.

Furthermore, the pollution complaints include suits broughtagainst the Company by governmental entities, including the Stateof Alabama, the State of Louisiana, Plaquemines Parish, the Cityof Greenville, and three Mexican states. The wrongful death andother personal injury complaints generally allege negligence andgross negligence and seek awards of compensatory damages,including unspecified economic damages and punitive damages. TheCompany has retained counsel and are investigating and evaluatingthe claims, the theories of recovery, damages asserted, and theCompany's respective defenses to all of these claims.

Judge Barbier is also presiding over a separate proceeding filedby Transocean under the Limitation of Liability Act. In theLimitation Action, Transocean seeks to limit its liability forclaims arising out of the Macondo well incident to the value ofthe rig and its freight. Although the Limitation Action is notconsolidated in the MDL, to this point the judge is effectivelytreating the two proceedings as associated cases.

On February 18, 2011, Transocean tendered the Company, along withall other defendants, into the Limitation Action. As a result ofthe tender, the Company and all other defendants will be treatedas direct defendants to the plaintiffs' claims as if theplaintiffs had sued each of the Company and the other defendantsdirectly. In the Limitation Action, the judge intends todetermine the allocation of liability among all defendants in thehundreds of lawsuits associated with the Macondo well incident,including those in the MDL proceeding, that are pending in hiscourt. Specifically, the judge will determine the liability,limitation, exoneration and fault allocation with regard to all ofthe defendants in a trial set to begin in the first quarter 2012.

The Company does not believe, however, that a single apportionmentof liability in the Limitation Action is properly applied to thehundreds of lawsuits pending in the MDL proceeding. Damages forthe cases tried in the first quarter 2012, including punitivedamages, are currently scheduled to be tried in a later phase ofthe Limitation Action. Under ordinary MDL procedures, such caseswould, unless waived by the respective parties, be tried in thecourts from which they were transferred into the MDL. It remainsunclear, however, what impact the overlay of the Limitation Actionwill have on where these matters are tried. Document discoveryand depositions among the parties to the MDL are underway.

In April 2011, certain defendants in the proceedings filednumerous cross claims and third party claims against certain otherdefendants. BP Exploration and BP America Production Companyfiled claims against the Company seeking subrogation andcontribution, including with respect to liabilities under the OPA,and alleging negligence, gross negligence, fraudulent conduct, andfraudulent concealment. Transocean filed claims against theCompany seeking indemnification, and subrogation and contribution,including with respect to liabilities under the OPA and for thetotal loss of the Deepwater Horizon, and alleging comparativefault and breach of warranty of workmanlike performance. Anadarkofiled claims against the Company seeking tort indemnity andcontribution, and alleging negligence, gross negligence andwillful misconduct, and MOEX Offshore 2007 LLC, who has anapproximate 10% interest in the Macondo well, filed a claimagainst the Company alleging negligence. Cameron InternationalCorporation, the manufacturer and designer of the blowoutpreventer, filed claims against the Company seekingindemnification and contribution, including with respect toliabilities under the OPA, and alleging negligence. Additionalcivil lawsuits may be filed against the Company, and otherdefendants in the Limitation Action may file claims against theCompany prior to the May 20, 2011 deadline for filing such claims.In addition to the claims against the Company, generally thedefendants in the proceedings filed claims, including forliabilities under the OPA and other claims similar to theproceedings, against other defendants.

The Company also filed claims in April 2011. The Company filedclaims against BP Exploration, BP p.l.c. and BP America ProductionCompany, M-I Swaco (provider of drilling fluids and services,among other things), Cameron, Anadarko, MOEX, Weatherford U.S.L.P. and Weatherford International, Inc. (providers of casingcomponents, including float equipment and centralizers, andservices), Dril-Quip, Inc. (provider of wellhead systems) andnumerous entities involved in the post-blowout remediation andresponse efforts, in each case seeking contribution andindemnification and alleging negligence. The Company's claimsalso alleged gross negligence and willful misconduct on the partof the BP Defendants, Anadarko, and Weatherford. The Company alsofiled claims against M-I Swaco and Weatherford for contractualindemnification, and against Cameron, Weatherford and Dril-Quipfor strict products liability. The Company filed its answer toTransocean's Limitation petition denying Transocean's right tolimit its liability, denying all claims and responsibility for theincident, seeking contribution and indemnification, and allegingnegligence and gross negligence.

The Company says it intends to vigorously defend any litigation,fines, and/or penalties relating to the Macondo well incident.The Company says it has and expects to continue to incursignificant legal fees and costs, some of which it expects to becovered by indemnity or insurance, as a result of the numerousinvestigations and lawsuits relating to the incident.

HEARTLAND AUTOMOTIVE: Sued for Making Unsolicited Text Messages---------------------------------------------------------------Rene Heuscher, individually and on behalf of a class of similarlysituated individuals v. Heartland Automotive Services, Inc., CaseNO. 11-cv-02048 (N.D. Calif. April 26, 2011), accuses the largestJiffy Lube franchisee in the U.S. of making unsolicited textmessage calls to cellular telephones of consumers, which theplaintiff describes as "an especially pernicious form ofmarketing", which is prohibited under the Telephone ConsumerProtection Act, 47 U.S.C. Section 227, et seq.

Plaintiff is a resident of Washington. Defendant Heartland is aMinnesota corporation with its principal place of business inNebraska. Defendant operates approximately 435 Jiffy Lubelocations throughout the United States, including in California.

ITT EDUCATIONAL: Amended Securities Class Action Pending in NY--------------------------------------------------------------ITT Educational Services, Inc., continues to defend itself from anamended securities class action lawsuit pending in the UnitedStates District Court for the Southern District of New York,according to the Company's April 22, 2011, Form 10-Q filing withthe U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter endedMarch 31, 2011.

On November 3, 2010, a complaint in a securities class actionlawsuit was filed against the Company and two of its currentexecutive officers in the United States District Court for theSouthern District of New York under the following caption:Operating Engineers Construction Industry and MiscellaneousPension Fund, Individually and On Behalf of All Others SimilarlySituated v. ITT Educational Services, Inc., et al.

On January 21, 2011, the court named the Wyoming Retirement Systemas the lead plaintiff in the Securities Litigation. On April 1,2011, an amended complaint was filed in the Securities Litigationunder the following caption: In re ITT Educational Services, Inc.Securities and Shareholder Derivative Litigation. The amendedcomplaint alleges, among other things, that:

-- the defendants violated Section 10(b) and 20(a) of the Exchange Act and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder by creating and implementing a systemically predatory business model that operated as a fraud or deceit on purchasers of the Company's common stock during the class period by misrepresenting the Company's financials and future business prospects;

-- the defendants' misrepresentations and material omissions caused the Company's common stock to trade at artificially inflated prices throughout the class period; and

-- the market's expectations were ultimately corrected on August 13, 2010, when the ED published the loan repayment rate of the Company's students under a formula contained in proposed regulations published by the ED on July 26, 2010.

The putative class period in this action is from October 23, 2008,through August 13, 2010. The plaintiff seeks, among other things,the designation of this action as a class action, and an award ofunspecified compensatory damages, interest, costs, expenses,attorneys' fees and expert fees. All of the defendants intend todefend themselves vigorously against the allegations made in thecomplaint. There can be no assurance, however, that the ultimateoutcome of this or other actions (including other actions underfederal or state securities laws) will not have a material adverseeffect on the Company's financial condition or results ofoperations.

No further updates were provided in the Company's latest SECfiling.

NEW ORLEANS, LA: Property Tax Fee Class Action Set to Be Heard--------------------------------------------------------------Alejandro de los Rios, writing for The Louisiana Record, reportsthat a hearing that would determine the fate of a possible classaction against the city of New Orleans has been continued for thesecond time in a month, this time without date.

New Orleans residents Jimmie Jackson, Simms Hardin and theirbusiness KSD Properties LLC, are challenging City Ordinance No.22207, which imposes penalties and attorney and collection fees onresidents who are late paying property taxes.

New Orleans attorney Allain Hardin filed the suit on behalf of KSDin May 2009 in Orleans Parish Civil District Court.

Mr. Hardin's firm, Fransen & Hardin APLC, sued the city for theillegal collection of fees in 2008. In that suit, residents wereassessed a 3% penalty by the city and a 30% attorney collectionfee.

In the Fransen & Hardin suit, the Louisiana Supreme Court ruled itunconstitutional for the city to impose and collect the penaltiesand fees.

As a result of the ruling, New Orleans issued the city ordinancethat KSD is now challenging. The new law charged residents a 10%penalty on property taxes for late payment as well as a 9.5%"attorney/collection fee."

The city has filed a motion to transfer and consolidate this casewith the Francis & Hardin suit.

Actions in the KSD suit with Judge Herbert Cade presiding are heldpending a ruling by Judge Ethel Julien to consolidate the cases.

The City of New Orleans is arguing that what they chargedresidents were taxes and were not unconstitutional.

"The City of New Orleans fee and the outside collectors fee arenot penal in nature but are in fact designed to cover the cost ofcollections from the chronically delinquent taxpayer and hencewould not be unconstitutional," city attorneys argued inopposition to the plaintiffs.

The city has filed a motion for peremptory exception of no causeof action, stating that there are no damages at issue because theadditional taxes imposed on late payments are notunconstitutional.

Plaintiff attorneys claim that by seeking consolidation, NewOrleans "is telling this Court that those charges imposed by CityOrdinance No. 22207 are the same as the Ordinance that wasdeclared unconstitutional (Ordinance No. 18637)."

Consolidating the cases will also create a conflict of interestbecause the same counsel was being paid attorney/collection feesunder both ordinances, the plaintiffs claim. In the Fransen &Hardin case, the city filed a cross claim against its counselsaying it was liable for returning any unconstitutional fees.

"If counsel is going to be consistent, then he will have to file across claim over and against his own law firm in this case for theattorney/collection fee his law firm is paid," the plaintiffsargue.

"One could understand that counsel would be hesitant to push anycross claims given that he may be impacting his own pocketbook.Who is going to watch out for the City?"

The firm Linebarger, Goggan, Blair, Pena & Sampson LLP wasretained by the city and charges the attorney/collection fee onresidents.

New Orleans attorneys Lawrence Jones and Errol Conley arerepresenting the city in this case.

Plaintiffs reside within Placer County, State of California, andis an owner of a 2004 Nissan Armada.

Defendant Nissan North America is an active Californiacorporation which directs and coordinates all of Nissan'sactivities, including design, development, and marketing of Nissanvehicles including affected vehicles, in the U.S. market.

Plaintiff Erin Banks relates that as result of the failure of thedelta stroke sensor in their vehicle, she was unable to bring herNissan vehicle to a complete stop at a controlled and busyintersection. Fortunately she and her children were not involvedin a collision. This defect, according to the plaintiffs, shouldhave long ago resulted in the timely voluntary recall of theaffected vehicles, but defendants have failed to take this andother steps "to mitigate the unreasonable danger and hazard posedby this concealed danger."

POSSIBILITIES COUNSELING: Likely to Face Class Action-----------------------------------------------------Lindsay Tice, writing for Lewiston Sun Journal, reports thatPossibilities Counseling, a once-thriving, now-shuttered Auburnmental health agency, is likely to be the subject of a class-action lawsuit, despite the fact that most of its social workersand other affiliates have now been paid what they were owed.

In Portland on April 26, a Business and Consumer Court judge saidhe'll likely allow hundreds of social workers, counselors andother affiliates of Possibilities Counseling to band together in aclass-action lawsuit against the agency and its former billingcompany, Affiliate Funding. But Justice Andrew M. Horton alsosaid he will likely set criteria that limits who can join such asuit.

The two sides will submit their arguments regarding that criteriathis week. Judge Horton will rule sometime after that.

Located on Center Street in Auburn, Possibilities Counseling hadabout 550 affiliate therapists and case managers serving 10,000mental health clients around Maine. Possibilities was supposed tobill the state and private insurance agencies on behalf of theaffiliates and then pay those affiliates.

But last fall, a pair of surprise Maine Department of Health andHuman Services inspections found that 16 of 18 office staffers hadwalked out and were replaced largely by the untrained family andfriends of Possibilities owner Wendy Bergeron. The state issued aconditional license and gave Ms. Bergeron a number of conditionsshe had to meet over the next year. Instead, Ms. Bergeron closedthe agency.

During that time, hundreds of affiliates claimed PossibilitiesCounseling wasn't paying them, and some said the company hadn'tpaid for months. They said they were owed between several hundreddollars and tens of thousands of dollars.

Since then, with the help of a court ordered "referee," nearly allof the affiliates have been paid, an amount that totals more than$1 million. Much of that money was paid by the state and privateinsurers who hadn't been properly billed before.

But there are still unresolved issues, including interest on therecent payments, agency fees that affiliates feel Possibilitiesshouldn't get to keep, and attorneys' fees. Those will be thelikely focus of any class action lawsuit.

Lawyers for Possibilities Counseling and Affiliate Funding arguedon April 26 that a class-action lawsuit would help only thelawyers -- who would make money from attorneys' fees -- not theaffiliates or the court system. They urged the judge to deny theclass action and force each affiliate to file a separate lawsuit,likely through Small Claims Court. They believe most of the 550affiliates won't file, and won't win if they do.

"You could be [defending] that for the next six years," JudgeHorton pointed out.

At one point during the morning-long hearing, Judge Horton said hewas leaning toward approving the class action, and he asked thetwo sides to try to agree on the criteria for inclusion in such asuit. But after nearly 30 minutes of discussion, no agreementcould be reached.

Judge Horton said he will likely approve a class action and setthe criteria himself after reading the arguments from both sides.A ruling won't be announced for at least a week.

ROSUKRENERGY: Ukraine PM Files Racketeering Class Action in U.S.----------------------------------------------------------------Former Ukrainian Prime Minister Yulia Tymoshenko has filed alawsuit in an American court against natural gas companyRosUkrEnergy and one of its co-owners, Ukrainian Dmytro Firtash.

The class action lawsuit was filed on April 26 on behalf of theUkrainian people in the U.S. district court in New York.Ms. Tymoshenko accuses Firtash and RosUkrEnergy of conspiring tomanipulate a Swedish arbitration court ruling, which she saysrobbed Ukraine of natural gas supplies.

The case stems from a ruling last year that Ukraine's state runenergy company (NAK Naftogaz Ukrainy) owed RosUkrEnergy 12.1billion cubic meters of gas for fuel it had "expropriated."

The lawsuit says the ruling deprived the Ukrainian people of fuelthe government had already paid for and allowed Firtash to reaphuge amounts of money when the gas was resold on the open market.

The suit was filed under an American statute that allows actionsin U.S. courts to uphold international law as well as aracketeering and corrupt practices act.

Ms. Tymoshenko is currently under investigation by the governmentfor allegedly abusing power in a natural gas deal signed withRussia in 2009 when she was prime minister.

Since her political rival Viktor Yanukovich took office,Ms. Tymoshenko has been charged in two other criminal casesinvolving alleged misuse of funds. She says the charges arepolitically motivated.

STARBUCKS CORP: Discovery Order in Applicants' Suit Vacated-----------------------------------------------------------A three-member panel of the Court of Appeals of California, FourthDistrict, ordered a trial court to vacate its discovery order in apurported class action by job applicants against StarbucksCorporation.

The class suit was brought by three job applicants in 2005 onbehalf of some 135,000 applicants, contending that Starbucks'preprinted job application violated provisions of a Californialegislation that called for the destruction of all minor marijuanaconvictions that were more than two years old.

The trial court initially dismissed plaintiffs as classrepresentatives as they had no marijuana convictions to reveal,but they were permitted to file an amended complaint. The trialcourt also allowed class counsel to conduct further discovery tofind a suitable class representative. To this end, Starbucks wasordered to randomly review job applications and disclose theidentities of applicants with prior marijuana convictions to classcounsel.

"Far from protecting the public's interest, precertification classdiscovery will harm the putative class members' protected privacyrights, in contravention of the prohibition against employerinquiries in the marijuana reform legislation," the AppellateCourt said. It held that the trial court abused discretion inallowing the proposed pre-certification discovery.

"With no readily apparent means by which class members may beidentified without also violating their statutory privacy rights,there may well be no ascertainable class, let alone a classrepresentative plaintiff," the Appellate Court said.

A copy of the Appellate Court's April 25, 2011, opinion isavailable at http://is.gd/ahehAUfrom Leagle.com.

SIGNATURE HOSPITAL: Class Action Over Sick Leave Amended--------------------------------------------------------Jody Murphy at NewsandSentinel.com reports that the class-actionlawsuit over accrued sick leave has been amended, and therepresentatives for the defendant will soon be filing a response.

Thomas Brandon Jr., an employment law attorney with Whitaker,Chalk, Swindle & Sawyer, a Fort Worth, Texas, law firmrepresenting Signature Hospital Corp., said officials had a30-minute hearing on April 26 to amend an order certifying aclass-action lawsuit against Signature, doing business as St.Joseph's Hospital. Mr. Brandon may be reached at:

The suit was filed by Ginny Conley and George Consenza,representing former St. Joseph's Hospital employees.

Wood County Circuit Court Judge Bob Waters approved class-actionstatus for the suit in April, without Signature having legalrepresentation present. Mr. Brandon said he's never had a class-action being certified without the other side being present.

"We ended up agreeing to some changes," he said. "It makes itmore neutral, as opposed to one-sided. It better defines theclass and puts more people on notice as to what is involved inbeing in a class action."

The employees contend Signature, doing business as St. Joseph'sHospital, failed to compensate employees for their accrued sickleave following the hospital's purchase by West Virginia UnitedHealth Systems and merger into what has become Camden ClarkMedical Center.

Ms. Conley and Mr. Consenza believe 613 former employees wereshort-changed by Signature. Ms. Conley contends the accrued leaveranges from just a few hours to more than 900. She said at leastone employee lost 980 hours of banked sick time.

Mr. Brandon said Signature has 10 days to file a response to thesuit.

"St. Joseph's has been fighting for the sick leave all along. Itis unfortunate it has come to this," Mr. Brandon said.

Mr. Brandon said the suit will boil down to the question ofwhether there was a term or contract between Signature and itsemployees to provide sick leave.

"My understanding (of West Virginia law) is sick leave, unless itis actually accrued, doesn't have to be paid out, unless there wasa contract that requires them to be paid out."

Mr. Brandon said hospital employees incorrectly believed thenotation of hours on their paychecks was a "real number."

"That Signature was holding onto that; that it was cash we tookout of state. That is not the case at all," he said. "Sick timeis never payable until you get sick. As far as I know, there hasnever been a time when someone left and got sick time. It wasn'tlike Signature withheld some money . . . . that was never thecase. It wasn't actual money. It was just a notation for you tokeep on your records."

SONY CORP: Sued Over PlayStation Network Data Breach----------------------------------------------------Dean Takahashi, writing for GamesBeat, reports that Sony hasn'tyet recovered from the PlayStation Network outage, but it hasalready been hit with a class-action lawsuit filed on behalf of anangry user. The suit comes a day after Sony admitted thatpersonal information, including credit card data, had beencompromised when hackers broke into its online entertainmentservice.

The PlayStation Network has more than 77 million registered users,and the data breach is one of the worst in hacking history. Sonysaid an external attack compromised user information, includingnames, addresses, birthdays, login passwords, and possibly creditcard information.

"We brought this lawsuit on behalf of consumers to learn the fullextent of Sony PlayStation Network data security practices and thedata loss and to seek a remedy for consumers. We are hopeful thatSony will take this opportunity to learn from the networkvulnerabilities, provide a remedy to consumers who entrusted theirsensitive data to Sony, and lead the way in data security bestpractices going forward," said Ira P. Rothken an attorney whofiled the class action complaint.

"Sony's breach of its customers' trust is staggering. Sonypromised its customers that their information would be keptprivate. One would think that a large multinational corporationlike Sony has strong protective measures in place to prevent theunauthorized disclosure of personal information, including creditcard information. Apparently, Sony doesn't," said J.R. Parker,co-counsel in the case.

The suit was filed in U.S. district court in San Francisco onbehalf of user Kristopher Johns. It alleges breach of warranty,negligent data security, violation of consumer rights to privacyand other charges. For sure, you can now add legal costs to theestimated damages that have resulted from the security breach.

The suite seeks monetary compensation for the data loss and lossof access to the network, credit monitoring costs, and otherrelief.

Sony hasn't yet commented on the lawsuit.

UNITED STATES: Bank Selection in Native American Suit Questioned----------------------------------------------------------------According to an article posted at The Blog of Legal Times byMike Scarcella, the federal judge overseeing the $750 millionsettlement in a Native American class action expressed concern onApril 26 over the selection of four banks in which the plaintiffs'lawyers want to invest money before checks are cut to potentiallythousands of beneficiaries.

The plaintiffs' lawyers in Keepseagle v. Vilsack, a suit overdiscrimination in the government's loan processing for NativeAmerican farmers and ranchers, proposed splitting and investingabout $600 million in Bank of America Corporation, Wells Fargo &Company, Citigroup, Inc. and PNC Financial Services. A fifthbank, owned by a Native American tribe in Oklahoma, would receiveabout $18 million.

At a hearing in the case on April 26 in Washington federaldistrict court, U.S. District Judge Emmet Sullivan criticized theselection of the four major banks, saying the plaintiffs' teamfailed to fully examine the use of Native American or minority-owned banks.

The plaintiffs' lawyers, he said, should have sent proposalrequests to more banks outside of the major national institutions.The judge called the selection of the big four banks "suspect" andasked whether their designation marked "business as usual."

Joseph Sellers of Washington's Cohen Milstein Sellers & Toll andPatton Boggs tax partner Sean Clancy said the safe-keeping of thesettlement funds was the driving force behind the selection of thefour banks. Messrs. Sellers and Clancy said the plaintiffs' teamsought a balance between protecting the money while simultaneouslygenerating modest interest. The lawyers anticipate the settlementmoney would sit for a year to 18 months before class membersreceive money.

The settlement does not require judicial approval of the banks.Sellers pitched the plaintiffs' proposal to the judge not to askhim to evaluate the merits of the selection but to apprise him onthe designation process. That Judge Sullivan cannot control thebanks that are chosen did not stop him from weighing in.

Judge Sullivan said he was expressly concerned with whether themoney is safe in the hands of the four major financialinstitutions. The selection of the four banks, he said,"troubled" him and he asked the lawyers to come back to him with aproposal to include more Native American or minority-owned banks."I would think that's what the plaintiffs' class would want," hesaid.

The judge also asked the plaintiffs' lawyers whether a grand juryis investigating any of the four banks or whether any has receiveda Justice Department target letter notifying the bank of agovernment investigation.

Mr. Clancy said he raised those questions with bank officials, buthe expressed doubt that the bank employees with whom he spokewould have knowledge of a pending grand jury investigation orinquiry. Sullivan expressed interest in having the lawyers makefollow-up questions to higher-ups at the four banks.

The Justice Department sat on the sidelines in the bank selectionprocess, and the government has no liability once the money istransferred to the designated banks. If anything happens to thesettlement funds, the plaintiffs' lawyers are on the hook, not thegovernment. The plaintiffs, not the government, are responsiblefor getting class members their money.

In court on April 26, Judge Sullivan insisted several times he wasnot "casting aspersions" but raising legitimate questions that anyjudge should ask. He said he planned to share his observationswith colleagues who may, in the future, have to deal with asimilar issue.

Messrs. Clancy and Sellers said in court that the mechanism theplaintiffs proposed does not put the settlement funds at risk.The money, the attorneys said, would be intentionally dividedamong four major banks to protect against the failure of any onefinancial institution. The plaintiffs' lawyers said the moneywould remain largely outside the banks' creditors in segregatedaccounts.

The plaintiffs' lawyers, Mr. Clancy said, did not send formalrequests for proposals to more Native American banks because thebulk of them are what he called "local" banks that are not largeenough to handle multi-million dollar transactions. Sullivan saidthe plaintiffs' lawyers don't know that is true unless theyinquire of the smaller banks.

Mr. Clancy said the plaintiffs' team did not anticipate dividingthe settlement money into smaller portions to make 100 or moredeposits in banks around the country. The potential loss of fundsis greater in a small bank than in a larger institution, he said.

"We could have a loss of funds with the big four banks," JudgeSullivan said in response. "Recent history has demonstrated thatquite clearly."

The lawyers in the case are due back in court tomorrow for afairness hearing over the settlement. Class members will beallowed to voice objections to the settlement. Judge Sullivansaid he will rule after the hearing on how much the plaintiffs'lawyers should receive for their work in the case.

XEROX IT: ClassAction.org Attorneys Ready to Review Claims----------------------------------------------------------The overtime attorneys working with Class Action.org are availableto review claims from Xerox IT employees in California who haveworked more than 40 hours a week without receiving overtime pay.Reportedly, an employee at the company has filed a lawsuit, whichseeks $50 million on behalf of a proposed class of California ITemployees who were reclassified as ineligible for overtime pay in2008, alleging that Xerox Company Affiliated Computers ServicesInc. violated federal and state wage and hour law. If you haveworked as a Xerox IT worker in California and were denied overtimepay, you may also have legal recourse. Visithttp://www.classaction.org/xerox-it-employees-unpaid-overtime-claims.htmltoday and fill out the free case evaluation form to find out ifyou can file a claim to recover up to three years of unpaidovertime wages.

According to the Xerox overtime lawsuit, the plaintiff worked atACS as a service technician, carrying out IT services forcompanies which outsource these departments. At first, theplaintiff was reportedly classified as eligible for overtime wagesand received time-and-a-half pay when working more than 40 hours aweek. However, in April 2008, the company allegedly changed itsclassification of employees.

The Xerox overtime lawsuit claims that service technicians couldwork as many as 72 hours per week. However, the suit alleges thatonly some of these hours were able to be recorded on ACS timesheets, with service technicians only receiving a fixed amount ofpay without time-and-a-half compensation. The plaintiff allegesthat he is owed more than $128,000 in damages, and claims thatthere are at least 500 others who are owed approximately $100,000each.

If you worked as a service technician at Xerox Corp. inCalifornia, you may be able to make a legal claim for your unpaidwages. IT workers are among the employees who are commonly deniedovertime in violation of the law, and may have legal recourse iftheir employer breached federal or state overtime laws. To learnmore about the Xerox overtime lawsuit and to find out if you havelegal recourse after being denied overtime pay, visit ClassAction.org today.

About Class Action.org

Class Action.org is dedicated to protecting consumers andinvestors in class actions and complex litigation throughout theUnited States. Class Action.org keeps consumers informed aboutproduct alerts, recalls, and emerging litigation and helps themtake action against the manufacturers of defective products,drugs, and medical devices. Information about consumer fraudissues and environmental hazards is also available on the site.Visit http://www.classaction.orgtoday for a no cost, no obligation case evaluation and information about your consumerrights.

* Women Suffering With Vaginal Mesh Problems May File Claim-----------------------------------------------------------Women who have experienced mesh erosion, bladder slingcomplications or other problems after undergoing urinaryincontinence or pelvic organ prolapse repair surgery may havelegal recourse. In 2008, the U.S. Food and Drug Administrationnotified the public of serious complications associated with thesetransvaginal mesh systems, and patients who developed meshproblems after surgery may be able to file a claim to recoverfinancial compensation. If you suffered mesh erosion, bladdersling complications or other mesh side effects following surgery,find out if you may be able to file a trans vaginal mesh lawsuitto recover monetary damages for medical expenses and other losses.Visit http://www.classaction.org/transvaginal-mesh.htmland complete the free case evaluation form for a no cost, noobligation review of your vaginal mesh or bladder slingcomplications.

A 2008 FDA public health notification cautioned women about thetransvaginal placement of surgical meshes used to treat stressurinary incontinence and pelvic organ prolapse repair. Accordingto the FDA, transvaginal meshes are associated with seriouscomplications, including mesh erosion and infection. Reportedly,the FDA received more than 1000 complaints of these and othervaginal mesh problems from nine mesh manufacturers during a three-year time period. Vaginal scarring, pain during sex, andrecurrence of incontinence or prolapse were among the other meshside effects reported to the agency.

Women who experienced vaginal mesh side effects or bladder slingproblems may be able to take legal action to recover compensationfor damages. A vaginal mesh lawsuit would allow women whoexperienced mesh erosion or other side effects the chance to makea claim for physical pain, medical costs and other lossesresulting from their mesh problems. To find out if you may beentitled to financial compensation, visit Class Action today andcomplete the free case evaluation form. The vaginal meshattorneys working with the site are providing this initial casereview at no cost and remain dedicated to protecting the rights ofpatients who experienced mesh erosion and bladder sling problems.

About Class Action.org

Class Action.org is dedicated to protecting consumers andinvestors in class actions and complex litigation throughout theUnited States. Class Action.org keeps consumers informed aboutproduct alerts, recalls, and emerging litigation and helps themtake action against the manufacturers of defective products,drugs, and medical devices. Information about consumer fraudissues and environmental hazards is also available on the site.Visit http://www.classaction.orgtoday for a no cost, no obligation case evaluation and information about your consumerrights.

This material is copyrighted and any commercial use, resale orpublication in any form (including e-mail forwarding, electronicre-mailing and photocopying) is strictly prohibited without priorwritten permission of the publishers.

Information contained herein is obtained from sources believed tobe reliable, but is not guaranteed.

The CAR subscription rate is $575 for six months delivered viae-mail. Additional e-mail subscriptions for members of the samefirm for the term of the initial subscription or balance thereofare $25 each. For subscription information, contact ChristopherBeard at 240/629-3300.